Conger v. Nesbitt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the municipal court of St. Paul, upon a promissory note, made by defendant, payable to the order of Laraway, King & Per-rine, by whom, the complaint alleges, it was sold, indorsed and delivered to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Action in the municipal court of St. Paul, upon a promissory note, made by defendant, payable to the order of Laraway, King & Per-rine, by whom, the complaint alleges, it was sold, indorsed and delivered to plaintiff. The answer denies that the note was ever sold, indorsed or delivered to plaintiff, and alleges that, when it was overdue, the payees of the note sold and delivered it to one A. J. Conger, the husband of plaintiff; that, at such time, A. J. Conger was indebted to defendant in a sum largely in excess of the amount of such note; that, about the same time, all matters in dispute and…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The important question in this calse for the determination of the court below was whether the plaintiff derived title to the note in suit immediately from the payees, Laraway, King & Per-rine, or intermediately through her husband, A. J. Conger. If immediately from the former, then no equities existing between the defendant and A. J. Conger ever attached to it. The court below found this to be the fact, and we are of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding.
The evidence tends to show that, in the purchase of the note, A. J. Conger was acting merely as agent for the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Third National Bank v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crawford v. Hurd Refrigerator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894